RE: DDP draft specification
"Caitlin Bestler" <[email protected]> Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:43:34 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rddp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sanjay Goyal > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:29 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [rddp] DDP draft specification > > Hi, > > The below 2 sentences are from draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-05.txt > > 1. DDP provides enough information in each DDP Segment to > allow the ULP Payload in each inbound DDP Segment payloads to > be directly Placed into the correct ULP Buffer, even when the > DDP Segments arrive out-of-order. > 2. This specification requires reliable, in order Delivery LLPs. > > First sentence says that DDP segments which are MPA FPDUs in > TCP case can arrive out-of-order and second sentence says > that LLP (MPA layer) needs to provide ordered delivery. Isn't > it contradictory? > > Regards, > > Sanjay > The first clause allows DDP to place data into buffers in the order that the LLP provides DDP Segments for the purpose of placement. The second clause specifies that the LLP will only *deliver* the DDP Segments in order. DDP itself provides for in-order delivery only after LLP delivery. Placement deals with buffering. Placement alone does not enable the data to be used. See the rules about buffers being undefined until delivery. Basically the same distinction between placement and delivery that applies for DDP can apply between the LLP and DDP. But that is implementation specific since there is no standardization of the DDP/LLP interface. It was a design goal that the classic sockets interface be an acceptable interface, but it is no way mandated or even suggested.